No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Diagnosis and management of delirium in hospital oncology services
Abstract
The diagnosis of delirium in oncologic services is a challenge; nowadays, there is very little evidence-based information available to guide the medical personnel in the diagnosis and decision taking regarding delirium in the oncologic patient.
This article provides an updated review of the literature with extensive information on delirium in patients with cancer; the subject includes its definition, clinical features, precipitating and triggering factors, the frequency of delirium in oncological patients, its consequences, its treatment, and prognosis.
Delirium is a serious consequence of many acute or worsening chronic medical conditions, a side effect of medications, and a precipitant of worsening functional and cognitive status in older adults. It is a syndrome characterized by fluctuations in cognition and impaired attention that develops over a short period of time in response to an underlying medical condition, a substance (prescribed, over the counter, or recreational), or substance withdrawal and can be multi-factorial. We present a narrative review of the literature on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches to prevention and treatment of delirium with a focus on older adults as a vulnerable population. Older adult patients are most at risk due to decreasing physiologic reserves, with delirium rates of up to 80% in critical care settings. Presentation of delirium can be hyperactive, hypoactive, or mixed, making identification and study challenging as patients with hypoactive delirium are less likely to come to attention in an inpatient or long-term care setting. Studies of delirium focus on prevention and treatment with nonpharmacological or medication interventions, with the preponderance of evidence favoring multi-component nonpharmacological approaches to prevention as the most effective. Though use of antipsychotic medication in delirium is common, existing evidence does not support routine use, showing no clear benefit in clinically significant outcome measures and with evidence of harm in some studies. We therefore suggest that antipsychotics be used to treat agitation, psychosis, and distress associated with delirium at the lowest effective doses and shortest possible duration and not be considered a treatment of delirium itself. Future studies may clarify the use of other agents, such as melatonin and melatonin receptor agonists, alpha-2 receptor agonists, and anti-epileptics.
Background
Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common complication in older adults, with unknown epidemiology and effects on surgical outcomes in Asian geriatric cancer patients. This study evaluated incidence, risk factors, and association between adverse surgical outcomes and POD after intra-abdominal cancer surgery in Taiwan.
Methods
Overall, 345 patients aged ≥65 years who underwent elective abdominal cancer surgery at a medical center in Taiwan were prospectively enrolled. Delirium was assessed daily using the Confusion Assessment Method. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses investigated risk factors for POD occurrence and estimated the association with adverse surgical outcomes.
Results
POD occurred in 19 (5.5%) of the 345 patients. Age ≥73 years, Charlson comorbidity index ≥3, and operative time >428 min were independent predictors for POD occurrence. Patients presenting with one, two, and three risk factors had 4.1-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4–35.8, p = 0.20), 17.4-fold (95% CI, 2.2–138, p = 0.007), and 30.8-fold likelihood (95% CI, 2.9–321, p = 0.004) for POD occurrence, respectively. Patients with POD had a higher probability of prolonged hospital stay (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.8; 95% CI, 1.0–8.1; p = 0.037), intensive care stay (adjusted OR: 3.9; 95% CI, 1.5–10.5; p = 0.008), 30-day readmission (adjusted OR 3.1; 95% CI, 1.1–9.7; p = 0.039), and 90-day postoperative death (adjusted OR: 4.2; 95% CI, 1.0–17.7; p = 0.041).
Conclusion
POD occurrence was significantly associated with adverse surgical outcomes in geriatric patients undergoing elective abdominal cancer surgery, highlighting the importance of early POD identification in geriatric patients to improve postoperative care quality.
Aim
A serious syndrome for cancer in-patients, delirium risk increases with age and medical acuity. Screening tools exist but detection is frequently delayed or missed. We test the ‘Single Question in Delirium’ (SQiD), in comparison to psychiatrist clinical interview.
Methods
Inpatients in two comprehensive cancer centres were prospectively screened. Clinical staff asked informants to respond to the SQiD: “Do you feel that [patient’s name] has been more confused lately?”. The primary endpoint was negative predictive value (NPV) of the SQiD versus psychiatrist diagnosis (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual criteria). Secondary endpoints included: NPV of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), sensitivity, specificity and Cohen’s Kappa coefficient.
Results
Between May 2012 and July 2015, the SQiD plus CAM was applied to 122 patients; 73 had the SQiD and psychiatrist interview. Median age was 65 yrs. (interquartile range 54–74), 46% were female; median length of hospital stay was 12 days (5–18 days). Major cancer types were lung (19%), gastric or other upper GI (15%) and breast (14%). 70% of participants had stage 4 cancer. Diagnostic values were similar between the SQiD (NPV = 74, 95% CI 67–81; kappa = 0.32) and CAM (NPV = 72, 95% CI 67–77, kappa = 0.32), compared with psychiatrist interview. Overall the CAM identified only a small number of delirious cases but all were true positives. The specificity of the SQiD was 87% (74–95) The SQiD had higher sensitivity than CAM (44% [95% CI 41–80] vs 26% [10–48]).
Conclusion
The SQiD, administered by bedside clinical staff, was feasible and its psychometric properties are now better understood. The SQiD can contribute to delirium detection and clinical care for hospitalised cancer patients.
Background
Clinical frailty among older adults admitted to intensive care has been proposed as an important determinant of patient outcomes. Among this group of patients, an acute episode of delirium is also common, but its relationship to frailty and increased risk of mortality has not been extensively explored. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the relationship between clinical frailty, delirium and hospital mortality of older adults admitted to intensive care.
Methods
This study is part of a Delirium in Intensive Care (Deli) Study. During the initial 6-month baseline period, clinical frailty status on admission to intensive care, among adults aged 50 years or more; acute episodes of delirium; and the outcomes of intensive care and hospital stay were explored.
Results
During the 6-month baseline period, 997 patients, aged 50 years or more, were included in this study. The average age was 71 years (IQR, 63–79); 55% were male ( n = 537). Among these patients, 39.2% (95% CI 36.1–42.3%, n = 396) had a Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) of 5 or more, and 13.0% ( n = 127) had at least one acute episode of delirium. Frail patients were at greater risk of an episode of delirium (17% versus 10%, adjusted rate ratio ( adj RR) = 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20–2.43, p = 0.003), had a longer hospital stay (2.6 days, 95% CI 1–7 days, p = 0.009) and had a higher risk of hospital mortality (19% versus 7%, adj RR = 2.54, 95% CI 1.72–3.75, p < 0.001), when compared to non-frail patients. Patients who were frail and experienced an acute episode of delirium in the intensive care had a 35% rate of hospital mortality versus 10% among non-frail patients who also experienced delirium in the ICU.
Conclusion
Frailty and delirium significantly increase the risk of hospital mortality. Therefore, it is important to identify patients who are frail and institute measures to reduce the risk of adverse events in the ICU such as delirium and, importantly, to discuss these issues in an open and empathetic way with the patient and their families.
Objective: Detection of delirium in hospitalised older adults is recommended in national and international guidelines. The 4 'A's Test (4AT) is a short (<2 minutes) instrument for delirium detection that is used internationally as a standard tool in clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 2011 (year of 4AT release on the website www.the4AT.com) until 21 December 2019. Inclusion criteria were: older adults (≥65 years); diagnostic accuracy study of the 4AT index test when compared to delirium reference standard (standard diagnostic criteria or validated tool). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated from a bivariate random effects model.
Results: Seventeen studies (3,702 observations) were included. Settings were acute medicine, surgery, a care home and the emergency department. Three studies assessed performance of the 4AT in stroke. The overall prevalence of delirium was 24.2% (95% CI 17.8-32.1%; range 10.5-61.9%). The pooled sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.80-0.93) and the pooled specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.92). Excluding the stroke studies, the pooled sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) and the pooled specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.93). The methodological quality of studies varied but was moderate to good overall.
Conclusions: The 4AT shows good diagnostic test accuracy for delirium in the 17 available studies. These findings support its use in routine clinical practice in delirium detection.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
Delirium is a common neurobehavioral complication in hospitalized patients with a high prevalence in various clinical settings. Prevention of delirium is critical due to its common occurrence and associated poor outcomes. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of multicomponent interventions in preventing incident delirium in hospitalized patients at risk.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta‐analysis.
SETTING
Hospital.
PARTICIPANTS
We included a study if it was a randomized controlled trial and was evaluating effects of coordinated non‐pharmacologic multicomponent interventions in the prevention of delirium.
MEASUREMENTS
We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed and CENTRAL (PROSPERO: CRD42019138981; last update May 24, 2019). We assessed the quality of included studies by using the criteria established by the Cochrane Collaboration. We extracted the measured outcomes for delirium incidence, duration of delirium, length of hospital stay, falls during hospital stay, discharge to institutional care, and inpatient mortality.
RESULTS
In total, we screened 1,027 eligible records and included eight studies with 2,105 patients in the review. We found evidence of an effect (ie, reduction) of multicomponent interventions on the incidence of delirium (risk ratio = .53; 95% confidence interval = .41‐.69; I² = 0). We detected no clear evidence of an effect for delirium duration, length of hospital stay, accidental falls, and mortality. Subgroup analyses did not result in findings of substantial effect modifiers, which can be explained by the high homogeneity within studies.
CONCLUSION
Our findings confirm the current guidelines that multicomponent interventions are effective in preventing delirium. Data are still lacking to reach evidence‐based conclusions concerning potential benefits for hard outcomes such as length of hospital stay, return to independent living, and mortality.
Background:
Delirium affects > 15% of hospitalised patients but is grossly underdetected, contributing to poor care. The 4 'A's Test (4AT, www.the4AT.com ) is a short delirium assessment tool designed for routine use without special training. The primary objective was to assess the accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. The secondary objective was to compare the 4AT with another commonly used delirium assessment tool, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM).
Methods:
This was a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study set in emergency departments or acute medical wards involving acute medical patients aged ≥ 70. All those without acutely life-threatening illness or coma were eligible. Patients underwent (1) reference standard delirium assessment based on DSM-IV criteria and (2) were randomised to either the index test (4AT, scores 0-12; prespecified score of > 3 considered positive) or the comparator (CAM; scored positive or negative), in a random order, using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. Reference standard and 4AT or CAM assessments were performed by pairs of independent raters blinded to the results of the other assessment.
Results:
Eight hundred forty-three individuals were randomised: 21 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome, and 785 were included in the analysis. Mean age was 81.4 (SD 6.4) years. 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.96). The 4AT had a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61-87%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 92-97%). The CAM had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26-57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98-100%).
Conclusions:
The 4AT is a short, pragmatic tool which can help improving detection rates of delirium in routine clinical care.
Trial registration:
International standard randomised controlled trial number (ISRCTN) 53388093 . Date applied 30/05/2014; date assigned 02/06/2014.
Delirium is a neurocognitive syndrome that commonly occurs in older populations and people with cancer, particularly in those with advanced disease and in the last hours or days of life. While an underlying malignancy and its complications predispose a person to develop delirium, many of the treatments used in the management of cancer also increase the risk of delirium [1]. In addition to being associated with an increased risk of mortality and causing significant physical morbidity, delirium is often a severely distressing experience, not only for patients, but also for families and professional caregivers [1]. The target population for this European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) is adults with cancer who are at risk of delirium or have been diagnosed with delirium. The intended users for this CPG are healthcare professionals working in the field of oncology, in order to inform both clinical decisions and standards of care.
Ifosfamide, a widely used chemotherapeutic agent, has been frequently associated with encephalopathy. A larger-scale study was conducted to identify risk factors of ifosfamide-related encephalopathy, including hepatic function.
Adult patients who had completed at least one cycle of ifosfamide between January 2008 and December 2010 were included. Those with renal failure or liver failure were excluded. Data were collected through chart review. Patients with encephalopathy and patients without encephalopathy were compared on age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), baseline serum creatinine (SCr) level, albumin level, white blood cell count, liver function, brain metastasis, and dosage of ifosfamide. Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, Student t test, and univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used for analysis.
This study enrolled 337 patients. Thirty-eight patients (11%) had ifosfamide-related encephalopathy. They had poorer ECOG PS; higher SCr level, white blood cell count, and aspartate aminotransferase level; and lower serum albumin level compared with patients without encephalopathy. Ifosfamide dosage, brain metastasis, and age were not significant risk factors. Multivariate analysis indicated that only ECOG PS, SCr level, and albumin level contributed significantly to the risk.
To date, this is the largest-scale study to have analyzed the risk factors of ifosfamide-related encephalopathy. This study confirms that an ECOG PS of 2-4 and increased SCr level are significant risk factors of ifosfamide-related encephalopathy, whereas increased albumin level decreases the risk, consistent with previous reports. Higher aspartate aminotransferase levels have no significant impact. In contrast to previous studies, ifosfamide dosage and brain metastasis are not significant contributing factors.
Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Delirium, an acute disorder with high morbidity and mortality, is often preventable through multicomponent nonpharmacological strategies. The efficacy of these strategies for preventing subsequent adverse outcomes has been limited to small studies to date.
To evaluate available evidence on multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium interventions in reducing incident delirium and preventing poor outcomes associated with delirium.
PubMed, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2013.
Studies examining the following outcomes were included: delirium incidence, falls, length of stay, rate of discharge to a long-term care institution (institutionalization), and change in functional or cognitive status.
Two experienced physician reviewers independently and blindly abstracted data on outcome measures using a standardized approach. The reviewers conducted quality ratings based on the Cochrane risk-of-bias criteria for each study.
We identified 14 interventional studies. The results for outcomes of delirium incidence, falls, length of stay, and institutionalization were pooled for the meta-analysis, but heterogeneity limited our meta-analysis of the results for change in functional or cognitive status. Overall, 11 studies demonstrated significant reductions in delirium incidence (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38-0.58). Four randomized or matched trials reduced delirium incidence by 44% (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.76). The rate of falls decreased significantly among intervention patients in 4 studies (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60); in 2 randomized or matched trials, the rate of falls was reduced by 64% (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.61). Length of stay and institutionalization also trended toward decreases in the intervention groups, with a mean difference of -0.16 (95% CI, -0.97 to 0.64) day shorter and the odds of institutionalization 5% lower (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26). Among higher-quality randomized or matched trials, length of stay trended -0.33 (95% CI, -1.38 to 0.72) day shorter, and the odds of institutionalization trended 6% lower (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.30).
Multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium prevention interventions are effective in reducing delirium incidence and preventing falls, with a trend toward decreasing length of stay and avoiding institutionalization. Given the current focus on prevention of hospital-based complications and improved cost-effectiveness of care, this meta-analysis supports the use of these interventions to advance acute care for older persons.
Delirium is a common and serious problem among acutely unwell persons. Alhough linked to higher rates of mortality, institutionalisation and dementia, it remains underdiagnosed. Careful consideration of its phenomenology is warranted to improve detection and therefore mitigate some of its clinical impact. The publication of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5) provides an opportunity to examine the constructs underlying delirium as a clinical entity.
Altered consciousness has been regarded as a core feature of delirium; the fact that consciousness itself should be physiologically disrupted due to acute illness attests to its clinical urgency. DSM-5 now operationalises ‘consciousness’ as ‘changes in attention’. It should be recognised that attention relates to content of consciousness, but arousal corresponds to level of consciousness. Reduced arousal is also associated with adverse outcomes. Attention and arousal are hierarchically related; level of arousal must be sufficient before attention can be reasonably tested.
Our conceptualisation of delirium must extend beyond what can be assessed through cognitive testing (attention) and accept that altered arousal is fundamental. Understanding the DSM-5 criteria explicitly in this way offers the most inclusive and clinically safe interpretation.
Delirium is a disorder affecting consciousness, which gives rise to core clinical features and associated symptoms. Older patients are particularly prone, owing to higher rates of pre-existing cognitive impairment, frailty, co-morbidity and polypharmacy.
The aim of this study was to investigate the hypotheses that delirium affects the most vulnerable older adults and is associated with long-term adverse health outcome.
This prospective cohort study evaluated 278 medical patients aged > or = 75 years admitted acutely to a district general hospital in South Wales. Patients were screened for delirium at presentation and on alternate days throughout their hospital stay. Assessments also included illness severity, preadmission cognition, co-morbidity and functional status. Patients were followed for 5 years to determine rates of institutionalisation and mortality. Number of days in hospital in the 4 years prior to and 5 years after index admission were recorded.
Delirium was detected in 103 patients and excluded in 175. Median time to death was 162 days (interquartile range 21-556) for those with delirium compared with 1,444 days (25% mortality 435 days, 75% mortality>5 years) for those without (P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple confounders, delirium was associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio range 2.0-3.5; P < or = 0.002). Institutionalisation was higher in the first year following delirium (P = 0.03). While those with delirium tended to be older with more preadmission cognitive impairment, greater functional dependency and more co-morbidity, they did not spend more days in hospital in the 4 years prior to index admission.
Delirium is associated with high rates of institutionalisation and an increased risk of death up to 5 years after index event. Prior to delirium, individuals seem to compensate for their vulnerability. The impact of delirium itself, directly or indirectly, may convert vulnerability into adverse outcome.
Two identical, concurrent, parallel, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trials were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid and pamidronate for treating hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM).
Patients with moderate to severe HCM (corrected serum calcium [CSC] > or = 3.00 mmol/L [12.0 mg/dL]) were treated with a single dose of zoledronic acid (4 or 8 mg) via 5-minute infusion or pamidronate (90 mg) via 2-hour infusion. A protocol-specified pooled analysis of the two parallel trials was performed. Clinical end points included rate of complete response by day 10, response duration, and time to relapse.
Two hundred eighty-seven patients were randomized and evaluated for safety; 275 were evaluated for efficacy. Both doses of zoledronic acid were superior to pamidronate in the treatment of HCM. The complete response rates by day 10 were 88.4% (P = .002), 86.7% (P = .015), and 69.7% for zoledronic acid 4 mg and 8 mg and pamidronate 90 mg, respectively. Normalization of CSC occurred by day 4 in approximately 50% of patients treated with zoledronic acid and in only 33.3% of the pamidronate-treated patients. The median duration of complete response favored zoledronic acid 4 and 8 mg over pamidronate 90 mg with response durations of 32, 43, and 18 days, respectively.
Zoledronic acid is superior to pamidronate; 4 mg is the dose recommended for initial treatment of HCM and 8 mg for relapsed or refractory hypercalcemia.
Delirium, a syndrome characterized by an acute change in attention, awareness and cognition, is caused by a medical condition that cannot be better explained by a pre-existing neurocognitive disorder. Multiple predisposing factors (for example, pre-existing cognitive impairment) and precipitating factors (for example, urinary tract infection) for delirium have been described, with most patients having both types. Because multiple factors are implicated in the aetiology of delirium, there are likely several neurobiological processes that contribute to delirium pathogenesis, including neuroinflammation, brain vascular dysfunction, altered brain metabolism, neurotransmitter imbalance and impaired neuronal network connectivity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) is the most commonly used diagnostic system upon which a reference standard diagnosis is made, although many other delirium screening tools have been developed given the impracticality of using the DSM-5 in many settings. Pharmacological treatments for delirium (such as antipsychotic drugs) are not effective, reflecting substantial gaps in our understanding of its pathophysiology. Currently, the best management strategies are multidomain interventions that focus on treating precipitating conditions, medication review, managing distress, mitigating complications and maintaining engagement to environmental issues. The effective implementation of delirium detection, treatment and prevention strategies remains a major challenge for health-care organizations globally. Delirium is a severe neuropsychiatric syndrome characterized by an acute change in attention, awareness and cognition and is caused by various medical conditions. This Primer reviews the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and classification of delirium as well as its management approaches and discusses future directions in delirium research and treatment.
Background/objectives:
The Hospital Elder Life Program emerged 20 years ago as the reference model for delirium prevention in hospitalized older patients. However, implementation has been achieved at only 200 hospitals worldwide over the last 20 years. Among the barriers to implementation for some institutions is an unwillingness of hospital administration to assume the costs associated with implementing programs that service all hospitalized older patients at risk for delirium. Facing such a situation, we implemented a unique and self-evolving model of care of older hospitalized patients who had already developed delirium.
Design:
Hypothesis testing was carried out using a pretest-posttest design on program administrative data.
Setting:
Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, a tertiary-care teaching facility. PARTICIPANTS A total of 9,214 consecutively admitted older patients to non-intensive care (ICU) inpatient units over a 5.5-year period, regardless of the suspected presence of delirium or risk status for developing delirium.
Intervention:
A delirium intervention program targeting patients in whom delirium has already developed, with a modified delirium team supported by extensive workflow automation with custom tools in our electronic medical records system.
Measurements:
Length of stay (LOS) for delirious and non-delirious patients on units where this program was piloted. Benzodiazepine, opiate, and antipsychotic use on the same units.
Results:
There was a significant drop in LOS by 1.98 days (95% confidence interval = .24-3.71), a decrease in the average morphine dose equivalents administered from .38 mg to .21 mg per patient hospital day, diazepam dose equivalents from .22 mg to .15 mg per patient hospital day, and quetiapine administered from .17 mg to .14 mg per patient hospital day for delirious patients on the program pilot units.
Conclusion:
Elements of our unique active delirium treatment program may provide some direction to other program developers working on improving the care of older hospitalized delirious patients. However, the supporting evidence presented is limited, and a more rigorous prospective study is needed.
Delirium is defined as an acute disturbance in attention and cognition, with significant associated morbidity and mortality. This article discusses the basic epidemiology of delirium and approaches to diagnosing, assessing, and working up patients for delirium. It delineates the pathophysiology and underlying predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium. It also discusses recent advances in prevention and treatment, particularly multicomponent, nonpharmacological interventions.
Background
Delirium is common in patients admitted to the surgical trauma intensive care unit (ICU), and the risk factors for these patients differ from medical patients. Given the morbidity and mortality associated with delirium, efforts to prevent it may improve patient outcomes, but previous efforts pharmacologically have been limited by side effects and insignificant results. We hypothesized that scheduled quetiapine could reduce the incidence of delirium in this population.
Methods
The study included 71 adult patients who were at high-risk for the development of delirium (PRE-DELIRIC Score ≥50%, history of dementia, alcohol misuse, or drug abuse). Patients were randomized to receive quetiapine 12.5 mg every 12 h for delirium or no pharmacologic prophylaxis within 48 h of admission to the ICU. The primary end point was the incidence of delirium during admission to the ICU. Secondary end points included time to onset of delirium, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU and hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.
Results
The incidence of delirium during admission to the ICU was 45.5% (10/22) in the quetiapine group and 77.6% (38/49) in the group that did not receive pharmacological prophylaxis. The mean time to onset of delirium was 1.4 days for those who did not receive prophylaxis versus 2.5 days for those who did (p = 0.06). The quetiapine group significantly reduced ventilator duration from 8.2 days to 1.5 days (p = 0.002).
Conclusions
The findings suggested that scheduled, low-dose quetiapine is effective in preventing delirium in high-risk, surgical trauma ICU patients.
Delirium is a syndrome characterized by acute onset of changes in awareness and cognition, which fluctuate in severity during the episode. Altered mental status (AMS) and delirium have a high incidence rate among patients with cancer and this increases dramatically towards the end of life. Delirium is multi-factorial, as cancer patients have an array of predisposing and precipitating factors: metabolic disturbances, structural lesions, in addition to medications and infection. The complex nature of delirium in cancer patients and the high variability of its presentation make its diagnosis and management challenging and frequently missed. Management of delirium requires identifying and correcting the precipitating cause if feasible. Diagnosis of delirium requires a high index of suspicion, and a systematic assessment to confirm the diagnosis and identify the possible cause. This includes detailed history and comprehensive physical examination together with the use of diagnostic tools, for example: Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) tool. Given the considerable distress cancer patients suffer from, clinicians must assure safety of patients with delirium and safety of the medical team caring for the patient. Family members should be provided with counseling and support.
Background:
Delirium is an acute change in mental status affecting 10%-64% of hospitalized patients, and may be preventable in 30%-40% of cases. In October 2013, a task force for delirium prevention and early identification in medical-surgical units was formed at our hospital. We studied whether our standardized protocol prevented delirium among high-risk patients.
Methods:
We studied 105,455 patient encounters between November 2013 and January 2018. Since November 2013, there has been ongoing education to decrease deliriogenic medications use. Since 2014, nurses screen all patients for presence or absence of delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). Since 2015, nurses additionally screen all patients for risk of delirium. In 2015, a physician order set for delirium was created. Nonpharmacological measures are implemented for high-risk or CAM positive patients.
Results:
98.8% of patient encounters had CAM screening, and 99.6% had delirium risk screening. Since 2013, odds of opiate use decreased by 5.0% per year (P < .001), and odds of benzodiazepine use decreased by 8.0% per year (P < .001). There was no change in anticholinergic use. In the adjusted analysis, since 2015, odds of delirium decreased by 25.3% per year among high-risk patients (n = 21,465; P < .001). Among high-risk patients or those diagnosed with delirium (n = 22,121), estimated length of stay decreased by 0.13 days per year (P < .001), odds of inpatient mortality decreased by 16.0% per year (P = .011), and odds of discharge to a nursing home decreased by 17.1% per year (P < .001).
Conclusion:
With high clinician engagement and simplified workflows, our delirium initiative has shown sustained results.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the relationship between frailty and delirium.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta‐analysis.
SETTING
MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles on frailty and delirium published on or before October 31, 2017.
PARTICIPANTS
Individuals aged 65 and older.
MEASUREMENTS
Two authors independently reviewed all English‐language citations, extracted relevant data, and assessed studies for potential bias. Articles involving pediatric or neurosurgical populations, alcohol or substance abuse, psychiatric illness, head trauma, or stroke, as well as review articles, letters, and case reports were excluded. Studies underwent qualitative or quantitative analysis according to specified criteria. Using a random‐effects or fixed‐effects model, relative risk (RR) was calculated for the effect of frailty as a predictor of subsequent delirium. Heterogeneity was tested using Q and I² statistics.
RESULTS
We identified 1,626 articles from our initial search, of which 20 fulfilled the selection criteria (N=5,541 participants, mean age 77.8). Eight studies were eligible for meta‐analysis, showing a significant association between Q2 frailty and subsequent delirium (RR = 2.19, 95% confidence interval = 1.65–2.91). There was low variability among studies in the measures of association between frailty and delirium (I² 2.24, p‐value Q‐statistic = .41) but high heterogeneity in the methods used to assess the two conditions.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta‐analysis supports the existence of an independent relationship between frailty and delirium, although there is notable methodological heterogeneity between the methods used to assess the 2 conditions. Future studies are needed to better delineate the dynamics between these syndromes.
Background:
As part of a multicomponent delirium prevention protocol the Confusion Assessment Method (Short-CAM) was introduced to nursing as the standard delirium screening instrument on the general medical units. Despite significant educational efforts, quality monitoring revealed poor sensitivity with the use of Short-CAM.
Objectives:
To compare the validity of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) and Short-CAM on general medical units and to explore the impact of delirium education on the successful implementation of delirium screening tools.
Methods:
In this quality improvement project, both Nu-DESC and Short-CAM were scored by nurses on 2 general medical units, per standard practice. Two blinded physician-raters determined delirium diagnosis in 192 patients on these units on 8 separate days, utilizing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 criteria as the reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity of both scales were calculated.
Results:
Thirty-five of 192 patients (18.2%) were suffering from delirium on the day of assessment. The Short-CAM scored positive for 3 (1.6%) patients and the Nu-DESC for 50 (26.0%) patients on the same day as the physician-raters assessment. Sensitivity and specificity were respectively calculated at 8.6% and 100% for the Short-CAM and 77.1% and 85.4% for the Nu-DESC. There was no statistical difference in sensitivity and specificity of the Nu-DESC on the units regardless of the level of preimplementation delirium education.
Conclusions:
The Nu-DESC was shown to be an easy-to-deploy delirium-screening tool on general medical units with improved sensitivity when compared to the Short-CAM.
Delirium is defined as an acute disturbance in attention and cognition, with significant associated morbidity and mortality. This article discusses the basic epidemiology of delirium and approaches to diagnosing, assessing, and working up patients for delirium. It delineates the pathophysiology and underlying predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium. It also discusses recent advances in prevention and treatment, particularly multicomponent, nonpharmacological interventions.
Background Delirium is a frequent psychiatric complication to cancer, but rarely recognized by oncologists. Aims 1. To estimate the prevalence of delirium among inpatients admitted at an oncological cancer ward 2. To investigate whether simple clinical factors predict delirium 3. To examine the value of cognitive testing in the assessment of delirium. Methods On five different days, we interviewed and assessed patients admitted to a Danish cancer ward. The World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases Version 10, WHO ICD-10 Diagnostic System and the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) were used for diagnostic categorization. Clinical information was gathered from medical records and all patients were tested with Mini Cognitive Test, The Clock Drawing Test, and the Digit Span Test. Results 81 cancer patients were assessed and 33% were diagnosed with delirium. All delirious participants were CAM positive. Poor performance on the cognitive tests was associated with delirium. Medical records describing CNS metastases, benzodiazepine or morphine treatment were associated with delirium. Conclusions Delirium is prevalent among cancer inpatients. The Mini Cognitive Test, The Clock Drawing Test, and the Digit Span Test can be used as screening tools for delirium among inpatients with cancer, but even in synergy, they lack specificity. Combining cognitive testing and attention to nurses' records might improve detection, yet further studies are needed to create a more detailed patient profile for the detection of delirium.
The psychiatric disorder that more one presents in the patients with cancer is the delirium, due to direct and indirect effects of the disease and the treatment, registering among 15% and 20% of the patients, increasing this percentage up to among28% and 48% in the cancer patients with advanced stadium deposited in a hospital. The identification of the reasons of the delirium and the differentiation of this one with other psychiatric disorders, constitutes the essential principle of managing, it's important that it is a question with psychoactive drugs and psychotherapy to obtain ideal results, nevertheless often one does not give the treatment adapted to this disorder, since there is thought that it is something "hoped" due to the disease.
This column shares the best evidence-based strategies and innovative ideas on how to facilitate the learning of EBP principles and processes by clinicians as well as nursing and interprofessional students. Guidelines for submission are available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1741-6787.
Objectives:
To determine the efficacy and safety of different antipsychotic drugs in the management of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia in the acute phase. To formulate evidence-based recommendations on the antipsychotic (AP) drug management strategies for the treatment of the adult diagnosed with schizophrenia in the acute phase.
Method:
Clinical practice guidelines were prepared, using the guidelines of the Methodology Guide of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection, in order to identify, synthesise, and evaluate the evidence and formulate recommendations as regards the management and follow-up of adult patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. The evidence of the NICE 82 guideline was adopted and updated, which answered the question on the management of the acute phase of adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The evidence and its level were presented to the Guideline Development Group (GDG) in order to formulate recommendations following the methodology proposed by the GRADE approach.
Results:
Clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone, ziprasidone, amisulpride, paliperidone, haloperidol, quetiapine, and aripiprazole were more effective than placebo for the majority of psychotic symptoms and the abandonment of treatment, but asenapine was not. Paliperidone, risperidone, quetiapine, clozapine, and olanzapine showed significant increases in weight compared to placebo. Haloperidol, risperidone, ziprasidone, and paliperidone had a higher risk of extrapyramidal symptoms than placebo. There was a significant risk of sedation or drowsiness with, risperidone, haloperidol, ziprasidone, quetiapine, olanzapine, and clozapine in the comparisons with placebo. Of the results of the comparisons between AP, it was shown that clozapine and paliperidone had a clinically significant effect compared to haloperidol and quetiapine, respectively. Olanzapine and risperidone had a lower risk of abandoning the treatment in general, and due to adverse reactions in two comparisons of each one, haloperidol was the drug with more risk of abandoning due to adverse effects, followed by clozapine. Amisulpride, haloperidol and ziprasidone had favourable results as regards weight increase in several comparisons. Aripiprazole and paliperidone obtained a higher number of favourable results as regards sedation, and all the atypical drugs (except paliperidone) had a lower risk than the use of anti-parkinsonian drugs. Of the evidence from observational studies, it was found that, in subjects with risk factors for diabetes, such as age, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia, the initial treatment and current treatment with olanzapine, as well as current treatment with clozapine, may promote the development of this disease.
Conclusion:
Although it is imperative to prescribe an antipsychotic for treatment of the acute phase, the selection of the drug depends on the particular clinical condition of each patient and their collateral effects profile.
Introduction:
Delirium is an acute alteration of consciousness and cognition. Atypical antipsychotics (AA) have recently become a main part of its treatment. Studies in this population generate a series of ethical dilemmas concerning the voluntary participation of patients and their state of vulnerability since their mental faculties are, by definition, compromised.
Objective:
To assess whether studies with AA for the treatment of delirium obtained an approval by an ethics committee on human research (ECHR), if an informed consent (IC) was obtained, whether the IC was verbal or written, and who gave the approval to participate.
Method:
Systematic review of Medline for studies of delirium where quetiapine and olanzapine were the main treatment, assessing the existence of an ECHR approval and implementation of an IC.
Results:
11 studies were identified (6 of quetiapine and 5 of olanzapine). 5 had an ECHR approval.
Conclusions:
Most studies examining the treatment of delirium with quetiapine or olanzapine were not subject to approval by an ECHR and most of them did not obtain an IC from the patient's legal guardian. It is essential that future studies of antipsychotics and other drugs for the treatment of delirium have the protocol approved by an ECHR and a written IC signed by the patient's legal representative, since by definition delirium is a condition that compromises superior mental processes.
Prevention has been shown to be the most effective strategy for minimizing the occurrence of delirium as well as delirium-associated complications.(5) Therefore prevention of delirium in older adults undergoing surgery is a top research priority given the extent of the problem in this patient population. In this review, we will describe the POD syndrome, previously identified risk factors that predict POD in surgical cancer patients, long-term outcomes of POD and both non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies aimed at preventing POD.
Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Purpose of review:
To update medical professionals on the role of artificial hydration in terminally ill cancer patients and to highlight recent research.
Recent findings:
First, we explain dehydration-related symptoms such as sensation of thirst, fatigue, and delirium. A multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial showed that artificial hydration did not improve dehydration symptoms, quality of life, or survival in terminally ill cancer patients. Then we explain overhydration-related symptoms such as bronchial secretion, pleural effusion, nausea/vomiting, ascites, and peripheral edema.The establishment of clinical guidelines can contribute to patient well-being by clarifying the best practice recommended from empirical evidence and expert experience available. Among them, we summarize a Japanese guideline for artificial hydration therapy for terminally ill cancer patients, which is evidence based, and address specific clinical questions.
Summary:
The determinants of the quality of life, dying, and death vary among individuals, and individuality is essential to define what is important for each patient. Clinicians need to make a decision based on the perceived benefits and harms of artificial hydration therapy in individual patient circumstances. Further researches with appropriately powered studies are required to determine which subgroups would benefit from artificial hydration therapy.
Video abstract:
http://links.lww.com/COSPC/A6
Objective:
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and side-effect profile of the typical antipsychotic haloperidol with that of the atypical antipsychotics risperidone, olanzapine, and aripiprazole in the management of delirium.
Method:
The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scale, and a side-effect rating were recorded at baseline (T1), after 2-3 days (T2), and after 4-7 days (T3). Some 21 cases were case-matched by age, preexisting dementia, and baseline MDAS scores, and subsequently analyzed.
Results:
The baseline characteristics of the medication groups were not different: The mean age of the patients ranged from 64.0 to 69.6 years, dementia was present in between 23.8 and 28.6%, and baseline MDAS scores were 19.9 (haloperidol), 18.6 (risperidone), 19.4 (olanzapine), and 18.0 (aripiprazole). The doses of medication at T3 were 5.5 mg haloperidol, 1.3 mg risperidone, 7.1 mg olanzapine, and 18.3 mg aripiprazole. Over one week, the decline in MDAS scores between medications was equal, and no differences between individual MDAS scores existed at T2 or T3. After one week, the MDAS scores were 6.8 (haloperidol), 7.1 (risperidone), 11.7 (olanzapine), and 8.3 (aripiprazole). At T2, delirium resolution occurred in 42.9-52.4% of cases and at T3 in 61.9-85.7%; no differences in assessments between medications existed. Recorded side effects were extrapyramidal symptoms (EPSs) in haloperidol- and risperidone-managed patients (19 and 4.8%, respectively) and sedation with olanzapine (28.6%).
Significance of results:
Haloperidol, risperidone, aripiprazole, and olanzapine were equally effective in the management of delirium; however, they differed in terms of their side-effect profile. Extrapyramidal symptoms were most frequently recorded with haloperidol, and sedation occurred most frequently with olanzapine.
Delirium is a frequent neurocognitive complication in patients with cancer, particularly in patients with advanced-stage disease (in whom a combination of factors might trigger an episode) and in patients with a high degree of predisposing vulnerability, such as the elderly or patients with dementia. The communicative impediments associated with delirium generate distress for the patient and their family, and substantive challenges for health-care practitioners, who might have to contend with agitation, and difficulty in assessing pain and other symptoms. Validated assessment tools exist for screening, diagnosing and monitoring the severity of delirium in cancer care. The level of investigative and therapeutic intervention in a delirium episode is determined by the patient's estimated prognosis and the agreed goals of care. Although delirium is ominously associated with the terminal phase of life, part or complete reversal can be possible depending on the nature of the precipitating factors, and on whether investigation and treatment of these factors is consistent with the established goals of care. Pharmacological treatment for symptom control is indicated for most patients with delirium, and antipsychotics are the drugs of choice, but some patients with refractory and nonreversible delirium can require continuous deep sedation with agents such as midazolam.
Objective:
Delirium is a frequently encountered psychiatric disease in terminal cancer patients. However, the mechanism of delirium is unclear. The aim of our study was to investigate the relationship between administration of chemotherapy drugs that penetrate the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and the development of delirium in cancer patients.
Method:
We retrospectively analyzed 166 cancer patients (97 males, 69 females) continuously who died between September of 2007 and January of 2010 using a review of medical charts. Multiple logistic regression analysis was employed to investigate the effects of antineoplastic drugs penetrating the BBB on development of delirium in cancer patients with control for other risk factors.
Results:
In multivariate analysis, antineoplastic drugs that penetrated the BBB were significantly associated with development of delirium (OR = 18.92, CI 95 = 1.08-333.04, p < 0.001).
Significance of results:
The use of chemotherapy drugs that penetrate the BBB may be a risk factor for delirium. This information may allow palliative care doctors and medical oncologists to predict which patients are at increased risk for delirium.
Patients with advanced diseases are exposed to many causes of hypomagnesaemia, the most frequent being pharmacological causes through the administration of chemotherapy, antibiotics, proton pump inhibitors, and so on. The objective of this review is to demonstrate the importance of measuring magnesium levels in the blood of these patients.
In the last decade, studies have been published showing a direct relationship between low levels of magnesium and nonspecific symptoms including pain that is difficult to control. Nevertheless, hypomagnesaemia is still being omitted as a differential diagnosis in many such patients.
A review of recently published studies regarding the clinical presentation of hypomagnesaemia in patients with advanced cancer and other chronic diseases is presented. Many of the clinical conditions are reportedly alleviated with intravenous or even oral magnesium administration. The presence of nonspecific neurological signs and risk factors for hypomagnesaemia could serve as an indication that serum magnesium should be determined in these patients.
Delirium is an acute disorder of attention and cognition in elderly people (ie, those aged 65 years or older) that is common, serious, costly, under-recognised, and often fatal. A formal cognitive assessment and history of acute onset of symptoms are necessary for diagnosis. In view of the complex multifactorial causes of delirium, multicomponent non-pharmacological risk factor approaches are the most effective strategy for prevention. No convincing evidence shows that pharmacological prevention or treatment is effective. Drug reduction for sedation and analgesia and non-pharmacological approaches are recommended. Delirium offers opportunities to elucidate brain pathophysiology-it serves both as a marker of brain vulnerability with decreased reserve and as a potential mechanism for permanent cognitive damage. As a potent indicator of patients' safety, delirium provides a target for system-wide process improvements. Public health priorities include improvements in coding, reimbursement from insurers, and research funding, and widespread education for clinicians and the public about the importance of delirium.
Although an evidence-based clinical guideline for parenteral hydration therapy was established in Japan, the efficacy of the guideline has not been assessed.
Our purpose was to explore the effect of parenteral hydration therapy based on this clinical guideline on quality of life (QoL), discomfort, symptoms, and fluid retention signs in patients with advanced cancer.
This multicenter, prospective, observational study included 161 patients with advanced abdominal cancer who received guideline-based hydration therapy. We evaluated the longitudinal changes of the global QoL (Item 30 of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-C30); the Discomfort Scale; the intensity of seven physical symptoms; and the severity of fluid retention signs. We also evaluated patient satisfaction and the feeling of benefit from hydration one week after the study commenced, and bronchial secretions, hyperactive delirium, communication capacity, and agitation 48 hours before a patient's death.
The global QoL, the Discomfort Scale, and the intensities of all physical symptoms, except for vomiting and drowsiness, were stable throughout the study period. More than 80% of patients maintained all fluid retention signs. Patient global satisfaction was 76.4 (0-100) and feeling of benefit was 5.43 (range 0-7).
Guideline-based parenteral hydration therapy contributed to maintaining global QoL and provided satisfaction and a feeling of benefit without increasing discomfort and worsening symptoms and fluid retention signs in patients with advanced cancer.
Delirium is a highly prevalent and deleterious disorder in terminally ill cancer patients. We assessed whether a multicomponent preventive intervention was effective in decreasing delirium incidence and severity among cancer patients receiving end-of-life care.
A cohort of 1516 patients was followed from admission to death at seven Canadian palliative care centers. In two of these centers, routine care included a delirium preventive intervention targeting physicians (written notice on selective delirium risk factors and inquest on intended medication changes), patients, and their family (orientation to time and place, information about early delirium symptoms). Delirium frequency and severity were compared between patients at the intervention (N = 674) and usual-care (N = 842) centers based on thrice-daily symptom assessments with the Confusion Rating Scale.
The overall rate of adherence to the intervention was 89.7%. The incidence of delirium was 49.1% in the intervention group, compared with 43.9% in the usual-care group (odds ratio [OR] 1.23, P = 0.045). When confounding variables were controlled for, no difference was observed between the intervention and the usual-care groups in delirium incidence (OR 0.94, P = 0.66), delirium severity (1.83 vs. 1.92; P = 0.07), total days in delirium (4.57 vs. 3.57 days; P = 0.63), or duration of first delirium episode (2.9 vs. 2.1 days; P = 0.96). Delirium-free survival was similar in the two groups.
A simple multicomponent preventive intervention was ineffective in reducing delirium incidence or severity among cancer patients receiving end-of-life care. Delirium prevention remains a difficult challenge in terminally ill cancer patients.
Frailty and delirium, although seemingly distinct syndromes, both result in significant negative health outcomes in older adults. Frailty and delirium may be different clinical expressions of a shared vulnerability to stress in older adults, and future research will determine whether this vulnerability is age related, pathological, genetic, environmental, or most likely, a combination of all of these factors. This article explores the clinical overlap of frailty and delirium, describes possible pathophysiological mechanisms linking the two, and proposes research opportunities to further knowledge of the interrelationships between these important geriatric syndromes. Frailty, a diminished ability to compensate for stressors, is generally viewed as a chronic condition, whereas delirium is an acute change in attention and cognition, but there is a developing literature on transitions in frailty status around acute events, as well as on delirium as a chronic, persistent condition. If frailty predisposes an individual to delirium, and delirium delays recovery from a stressor, then both syndromes may contribute to a downward spiral of declining function, increasing risk, and negative outcomes. In addition, frailty and delirium may have shared pathophysiology, such as inflammation, atherosclerosis, and chronic nutritional deficiencies, which will require further investigation. The fields of frailty and delirium are rapidly evolving, and future research may help to better define the interrelationship of these common and morbid geriatric syndromes. Because of the heterogeneous pathophysiology and presentation associated with frailty and delirium, typical of all geriatric syndromes, multicomponent prevention and treatment strategies are most likely to be effective and should be developed and tested.
Delirium is a common neurocognitive disorder among patients with cancer. In patients with head and neck cancer, delirium has been examined in the postoperative setting. Because no studies have reported on delirium during outpatient cancer treatment, we conducted a prospective study in 69 patients with head and neck cancer to examine neurocognitive function before, during, and after outpatient treatment. We also conducted a retrospective study in a subset of caregivers. In this paper, we report the prevalence and incidence of delirium and subsyndromal delirium (SSD) during outpatient treatment.
Assessments were conducted before treatment, at scheduled treatment visits, and at a 3-month post-treatment visit. Delirium and SSD were assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). Following treatment, we retrospectively asked patients (n = 58) and a subset of caregivers (n = 23) whether patients experienced delirium during treatment.
Based on CAM assessments at scheduled treatment visits, six patients (8.6%) developed delirium during treatment. Additionally, 31% of patients and 43.5% of caregivers retrospectively reported delirium. The prevalence and incidence of SSD were 7.2% and 45.3%, respectively.
These data suggest that delirium and SSD are frequent in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing outpatient treatment. Delirium was often associated with medical complications. The potential impact of delirium and SSD on treatment outcomes, recovery, and caregiving are significant clinical concerns.
Oral olanzapine is effective in controlling agitation in patients with delirium, but often, parenteral administration is necessary. Intramuscular (IM) olanzapine is approved for managing agitation in schizophrenia, but this route is inappropriate for terminally ill patients.
The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the safety and tolerability of subcutaneous (SC) olanzapine in the management of hyperactive or mixed delirium in patients with advanced cancer.
We conducted a prospective open-label study in patients with advanced cancer who had agitated delirium (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale [RASS] score ≥+1) that had not responded to a 10mg or higher dose of parenteral haloperidol over 24 hours. Patients received olanzapine 5mg SC every eight hours for three days and continued haloperidol for breakthrough agitation. For patients requiring more than 8mg of rescue haloperidol daily, the olanzapine dose was increased to 10mg SC every eight hours. Injection site, systemic toxicity, and efficacy (RASS score <+1 and total haloperidol dose <8mg per 24 hours on the last study day) were evaluated.
Twenty-four patients received at least one olanzapine injection, and 15 (63%) completed the study. Median age of evaluable patients was 58 years (range 49-79), and 67% were males. No injection site toxicity was observed after 167 injections. Probable systemic toxic effects were observed in four patients (severe hypotension [blood pressure <90/50mmHg], paradoxical agitation, diabetes insipidus, and seizure). Efficacy was achieved in nine (37.5%) patients.
IM olanzapine is well tolerated subcutaneously. Further research is needed to evaluate its efficacy in controlling agitated delirium.
: Delirium has been the most frequent neuropsychiatric complication in patients with advanced cancer. This exploratory study aimed to determine the proportion of patients who were able to recall their experience of delirium and the level of distress experienced by patients, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals.
: Patients with advanced cancer who had completely recovered from an acute delirium episode, had Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale score <13, and had a family caregiver present during the delirium were studied. Patients were given the Delirium Experience Questionnaire. Patients' and family caregivers' demographics, and the frequency and distress associated with different delirium symptoms were also collected. Bedside nurses and palliative care specialists reported the frequency of recalled delirium symptoms and their distress score.
: A total of 99 patient/family caregiver dyads participated in the study. The main identified causes for delirium were opioids, infection, brain metastases, hypercalcemia, and dehydration. There were 73 patients (74%) who remembered the episode of being delirious, with 59 of 73 patients (81%) reporting the experience as distressing (median distress level of 3). The median overall delirium distress score was higher in family caregivers (median, 3; 25%-75% quartile, 2-4) than in patients (median, 2; 25%-75% quartile, 0-3) (P = .0004). Bedside nurses and palliative care specialists expressed low median overall delirium distress scores (median, 0; 25%-75% quartile 0-1).
: The majority of patients with advanced cancer recalled their experience of delirium, causing moderate to severe distress in both patients and family caregivers. Appropriate interventions to reduce this distress are needed. Cancer 2009. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
Delirium is a frequent complication in oncology. Its definition as a disorder of consciousness, attention, and cognition is useful to elaborate a rational framework of its pathophysiology and to interpret the role of different aetiological factors and therapeutic interventions. Many aetiologies and an interaction between risk and predisposing factors have been shown to contribute to most cases of delirium. A screening of potential aetiologies is always mandatory to benefit reversible cases. The palliative treatment of symptoms of delirium includes non-pharmacological, environmental, and preventive interventions and the use of haloperidol. If haloperidol fails to control delirium, sedation with other drugs can be necessary. Specific attention to the qualitative aspects of care and to the effect of delirium on family members should be given in the overall assessment of the patient in his or her cancer trajectory.
We conducted a systematic examination of the experience of delirium in a sample of 154 hospitalized patients with cancer. Patients all met DSM-IV criteria for delirium and were rated with the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale as a measure of delirium severity, phenomenology, and resolution. Of the 154 patients assessed, 101 had complete resolution of their delirium and were administered the Delirium Experience Questionnaire (DEQ-a face-valid measure that assesses delirium recall and distress related to the delirium episode). Spouse/caregivers and primary nurses were also administered the DEQ to assess distress related to caring for a delirious patient. Fifty-four (53.5%) patients recalled their delirium experience. Logistic-regression analysis demonstrated that short-term memory impairment (odds ratio [OR] = 38.4), delirium severity (OR = 11.3), and the presence of perceptual disturbances (OR = 6.9) were significant predictors of delirium recall. Mean delirium-related distress levels (on a 0-4 numerical rating scale of the DEQ) were 3.2 for patients who recalled delirium, 3.75 for spouses/caregivers, and 3.09 for nurses. Logistic-regression analysis demonstrated that the presence of delusions (OR = 7.9) was the most significant predictor of patient distress. Patients with "hypoactive" delirium were just as distressed as patients with "hyperactive" delirium. Karnofsky Performance Status (OR = 9.1) was the most significant predictor of spouse/caregiver distress. Delirium severity (OR =5.2) and the presence of perceptual disturbances (OR =3.6) were the most significant predictors of nurse distress. In conclusion, a majority of patients with delirium recall their delirium as highly distressing. Delirium is also a highly distressing experience for spouses/caregivers and nurses who are caring for delirious patients. Prompt recognition and treatment of delirium is critically important to reduce suffering and distress.
We conducted an open, prospective trial of olanzapine for the treatment of delirium in a sample of 79 hospitalized cancer patients. Patients all met DSM-IV criteria for a diagnosis of delirium and were rated systematically with the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) as a measure of delirium severity, phenomenology, and resolution, over the course of a 7-day treatment period. Sociodemographic and medical variables and measures of physical performance status and drug-related side effects were collected. Fifty-seven patients (76%) had complete resolution of their delirium on olanzapine therapy. No patients experienced extrapyramidal side effects; however, 30% experienced sedation (usually not severe enough to interrupt treatment). Several factors were found to be significantly associated with poorer response to olanzapine treatment for delirium, including age >70 years, history of dementia, central nervous system spread of cancer and hypoxia as delirium etiologies, "hypoactive" delirium, and delirium of "severe" intensity (i.e., MDAS >23). A logistic-regression model suggests that age >70 years is the most powerful predictor of poorer response to olanzapine treatment for delirium (odds ratio, 171.5). Olanzapine appears to be a clinically efficacious and safe drug for the treatment of the symptoms of delirium in the hospitalized medically ill.
Diagnostic et prise en charge de l’hyponatrémie: revue des recommandations actuelles
- Berchtold
Delirium in cancer patients
- Zarie
Zarie G, Tamasan S. Delirium in cancer patients. TMJ. 2006;56(2-3):207-8.
de Los Ángeles Briganti M, Droguett M, Muñoz E, et al. DELIRIUM EN EL PACIENTE ONCOLÓGICO
- Fuentes
En: StatPearls [Internet].
- Ramírez Echeverría M.L.
- Paul M.
de Los Ángeles Briganti M, Droguett M, Muñoz E, et al. DELIRIUM EN EL PACIENTE ONCOLÓGICO.
- Fuentes C.
- Schonffeldt M.
- Rojas O.